Physical evidence pointing to a forward-facing iPad camera was found in the frame of replacement enclosures for the device.

Evidence for the possible existence of a forward-facing camera in the iPad was uncovered by repair company Mission Repair in a shipment of replacement iPad enclosures it acquired on Tuesday.

A "spot" that closely resembles the holes present in the Unibody Macbook exists within the iPad frame. Mission Repair confirmed that the camera from the Macbook does fit into place on the frame, with the lens, LED, and ambient light sensor all lining up.

AppleInsider first reported that the iPhone OS 3.2 SDK provided evidence that the shipping iPad could support a camera. According to one developer, the native Contacts application on the iPad offers the option to take a photo, in addition to choosing an existing one.

This adds some validity to the rumors that Apple may still be working on a camera-equipped iPad that could recognize the face of its user, as reported by the Wall Street Journal in the days before the reveal of the iPad. The article mentioned that it was "unclear whether the feature would be included at launch."

Well it makes sense, but if it's anything like the IPT we probably won't see it in the first Ipad. Only thing to do is wait and see. I would have thought that even a wifi only Ichat feature would have been a "big wow!" application for the tablet, even if it wasn't supported by 3G. I also wondered why there was a microphone and no camera. Kinda strange even if voice chat is utilized; not that many people voice chat, but then again not that many people really video chat either.

I get he feeling allot of things changed at "the last minute" in regards to the hardware, with "ultra competitive" pricing being the main factor in what to include or exclude. I know wasn't the only one pleasantly surprised with the pricing.

I understand some people don't think the tablet's cheap, but given Acer's announcement, it does seem like Apple made a strategic decision to drive the price down and exclude the extra's in favor of "the bottom line" as another way to make it harder for other's to compete; fair price, great OS, solid hardware, plethora of software and media in every format.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

A "spot" that closely resembles the holes present in the Unibody Macbook exists within the iPad frame. Mission Repair confirmed that the camera from the Macbook does fit into place on the frame, with the lens, LED, and ambient light sensor all lining up.

So did they find any way to actually install the camera? I'm interested to see if they could do that.

i guess i missed something. why would anyone be receiving repair parts on a product that doesn't ship for over 30 more days.

and even if they were thinking about a camera (as apparently they were about the ipod touch) doesn't mean that it is going to appear. or that it is going to be anything more than a web cam, rather than this crazy 'log in via facial recognization' gig

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

I agree with you, but it is possible that during the testing process they decided that the motion of the iPad for "normal" use was too high and they are waiting for better software to somehow reduce that.

Likely its a preplaned Rev B thing, however. Although that is sort of a "wow" feature that would have impressed many of the naysayers at launch.

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

I'm curious why it got so far as the mounting getting in the final molding for the first revision. It would seem to me that they would plan this farther ahead rather than drop it last minute. They've already been through this once before, it's odd to me why it would happen a second time like this.

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

Exactly. And who in their right mind would spend $500 on a 16GB anything, except a trendoid?

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed Apple for a while that they deliberately leave features out of rev. 1 products to make sure the hardcore fans (who bought rev. 1 as soon as they could) upgrade to rev. 2 the moment it comes out.

There was not a technical problem with the camera. Apple could have put it into rev. 1 of the iPad. But they didn't because a camera is going to be one of the "improvements" offered by rev. 2.

Exactly. And who in their right mind would spend $500 on a 16GB anything, except a trendoid?
Actually I glad that there exists those with such disposable incomes who can work out all the kinks until the 2nd Gen.

I have this gut feeling that Apple is going to have an iPhone OS event in March.
They had one in March of both 2008 and 2009. It doesn't make sense to launch a new product in 3.2 and not 4.0. With Apple now allowing VOIP over 3G I can see their 'one more thing' being multitasking and iChat with video camera on the iPad and next gen iPhone. Multitasking will probably only work on the next gen iPhone with a custom built chip.

I dunno... you can call me an optimist... but if they really wanted to push alot of people over the edge to purchase one of these bad boys... thats what I would do.

I have this gut feeling that Apple is going to have an iPhone OS event in March.
They had one in March of both 2008 and 2009. It doesn't make sense to launch a new product in 3.2 and not 4.0. With Apple now allowing VOIP over 3G I can see their 'one more thing' being multitasking and iChat with video camera on the iPad and next gen iPhone. Multitasking will probably only work on the next gen iPhone with a custom built chip.

I dunno... you can call me an optimist... but if they really wanted to push alot of people over the edge to purchase one of these bad boys... thats what I would do.

That would certainly be compelling.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

Well this is not good. I have pre- ordered a iPad here in New Zealand and knowing it could potentially get a iSight cam now im upset Either way i think if Apple really wanted a iPhone and Mac in between a iCam should of been a top priority for iPad either way i can guarantee iPad 1G is going to be worthless compared to iPad 2G next year

I get he feeling allot of things changed at "the last minute" in regards to the hardware, with "ultra competitive" pricing being the main factor in what to include or exclude. I know wasn't the only one pleasantly surprised with the pricing.

That seems the most likely.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I have this gut feeling that Apple is going to have an iPhone OS event in March.
They had one in March of both 2008 and 2009. It doesn't make sense to launch a new product in 3.2 and not 4.0. With Apple now allowing VOIP over 3G I can see their 'one more thing' being multitasking and iChat with video camera on the iPad and next gen iPhone. Multitasking will probably only work on the next gen iPhone with a custom built chip.

I dunno... you can call me an optimist... but if they really wanted to push alot of people over the edge to purchase one of these bad boys... thats what I would do.

While I would like to see 4.0 detailed in March, It will kind of be a kick in the nuts to the developers that just got the 3.2 SDK. Spending the rest of winter working on a 3.2 app only to have to rerelease it to work fluidly with 4.0 would suck. But at the same time, I'm not a developer. Bring on 4.0 with Multi-tasking, customizability, and whatever else you've been working on!

They also didn't nail down a launch date, instead stating they would be available 'in about 60 days; another 30 for 3G.'

This is similar to the iPhone's original debut, sure, but that still leaves time to add a camera.

And of course, they could include a camera without mentioning it if it lacks firmware or a compelling app. This would be similar to my new 32GB iPod touch's 802.11n antenna, which, while physically there, lacks the firmware to use it.

The SDK is designed for all the iPhone OS line. Therefore, if any devices - e.g. the iPhone itself - have a cam then the codes has to be in the SDK!

Yes 3.2 is for iPad only, but what are they gonna do? Rip out the code for this one version? Even in an iPad-only program such as Address Book, it would pay to keep features such as this in the code rather than ripping it out and then having to put it back in later. There is no significant cost for code which is not used. There is huge cost to rip out and then put back in.

As for the slot in the frame - if it is really there - there is not a huge cost to include it in the original milling specs planning for the future.

Well this is not good. I have pre- ordered a iPad here in New Zealand and knowing it could potentially get a iSight cam now im upset Either way i think if Apple really wanted a iPhone and Mac in between a iCam should of been a top priority for iPad either way i can guarantee iPad 1G is going to be worthless compared to iPad 2G next year

I just had a rogue thought......... is it possible that the camera modules themselves are in short supply?

I remember that the new iPod Touch was expected to sport a camera too, and didn't (although the Nano now has one)... tear-downs of the new iPod Touch also show a space for a camera.

And now we are having new delays with iMac shipments... the assumption was the screen problems... but it is selling quite well, and again, cameras onboard.....

When you consider that cameras are being included in every new iPhone, iPod Nano, MacBook, MacBook Pro AND iMac.... if you add up the combined unit sales for all those products, it adds up to what, tens of millions of camera-bearing units quarterly? Who supplies the cameras modules for those?

If the supply of camera modules was running short, which product would I delay first. The laptops? iPhone? The iPods? The iMacs? Laptops are Apple's biggest computer market, and iPods, well, shrinking but still substantial. The Nano is still a hot seller, especially with the camera onboard.

So, if I had to choose, I'd delay iMac shipments...

And, that could also explain why cameras haven't yet been added to the iPod Touch and iPad yet.. that would add additional millions of quarterly units needing cameras added...

Highly speculative of course... but I see a pattern here that just keeps pointing back to the camera itself (and therefore, availability), not the desire on the part of Apple to include one...

Well, so I went in search of who supplies the cameras to Apple, and found this job posting..... interesting coincidence!!

--------------
Global Supply Manager - Camera Module

Apple - Cupertino, CA

See original job posting at Apple »

The Global Supply Manager plays a critical role in the success of the Apple fulfillment model. Acting as a key interface between World Wide Materials, Strategic Suppliers and Contract Manufactures and managing all aspects of daily execution as well as quarterly supply planning required to maintain supply demand balance.

I just had a rogue thought......... is it possible that the camera modules themselves are in short supply?

I remember that the new iPod Touch was expected to sport a camera too, and didn't (although the Nano now has one)... tear-downs of the new iPod Touch also show a space for a camera.

And now we are having new delays with iMac shipments... the assumption was the screen problems... but it is selling quite well, and again, cameras onboard.....

When you consider that cameras are being included in every new iPhone, iPod Nano, MacBook, MacBook Pro AND iMac.... if you add up the combined unit sales for all those products, it adds up to what, tens of millions of camera-bearing units quarterly? Who supplies the cameras modules for those?

If the supply of camera modules was running short, which product would I delay first. The laptops? iPhone? The iPods? The iMacs? Laptops are Apple's biggest computer market, and iPods, well, shrinking but still substantial. The Nano is still a hot seller, especially with the camera onboard.

So, if I had to choose, I'd delay iMac shipments...

And, that could also explain why cameras haven't yet been added to the iPod Touch and iPad yet.. that would add additional millions of quarterly units needing cameras added...

Highly speculative of course... but I see a pattern here that just keeps pointing back to the camera itself (and therefore, availability), not the desire on the part of Apple to include one...

Props, genuinely good thinking. Does anyone know the details on apple and their camera partners? could they outsource to different companies and essentially do what the did to flash mem by leaving it scarce?...Apple may be the one caught in a pickle here.